Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

an over the top peice of legislation that would jail you for 5 years if you move, and fail to re register your firearms within 30 days.

That would be a maximum penalty of 5 years, which is the same as littering in some states. But maybe the courts would pay attention to all the posters on this forum that demand "prosecuted to the full extent of the law" for their various pet-peeve offenses.

It seeks to do somethign I have advocated for years, close certain looholes that criminals use to get their weapons, and create interstate controls as well so criminals cannot cross state lines to get their weapons from a legal vendor.

I'm not up to date on all 50 states, but I can't drive 5 miles into Memphis and buy a handgun. I can't drive 20 miles into West Memphis, AR and buy a handgun. You have to be a resident of the state where you are purchasing the handgun. If I were going to order a gun over the internet, it would have to be shipped to my local dealer so they can run the background check before I take possession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxisMundi

Look, I could care less about the bans on the weapons you use in competition. The ban is over and unlikely to be reinstated, and other firearms were compeltely unaffected, as was the right to own firearms in general.

But they are still trying. They learned from the first one that it was more of an inconvenience so they are trying new things. The only thing stopping them is their own incompetence.

While fixating on such nonsence, Clinton and her cronies tried to pass legislation that would've required micro-stamping on all brass sold and made in the US, something that would've drove the cost up far past what "casual" shooters (ie non-professionals and non-military/police) would've been able to afford.

Technically it wasn't Clinton. A guy thought up the laser serial numbering of individual bullets and had it patented. He then hired a company to lobby the different state legislatures to pass laws to make him money. The last time I looked bills had been introduced in 15 to 20 states but they have all failed. I thought California was the only one that had a chance to pass but thank goodness their budget woes took higher priority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noahma

under section 601, the usurpation of state law is outlined. Montana sells firearms produced in Montana, to Montana residence, this is well out of the grasp of the Federal government's grubby little hands. No interstate commerce has taken place. Yet this part of the law would require these particular firearms to be licensed before sale?

TN has also passed a law similar to MT's. Both state's attorney generals have received letters from the ATF basically saying they have the power over all guns. It will be in the courts for years.

I'm not up to date on all 50 states, but I can't drive 5 miles into Memphis and buy a handgun. I can't drive 20 miles into West Memphis, AR and buy a handgun. You have to be a resident of the state where you are purchasing the handgun.

Please don't tell me that people who are regular gun buyers do not know how to game that system. Everybody knows how easy it is to have plausible residence in two states. How do you think all those "law abiding" gun owners in Gulf Shores, Alabama, voted in Florida to win the presidency for Bush?

If you can get a driver's license in both states then you meet eligibility rules for both states. I see nothing wrong with that. Now if the state has lax rules about getting a license, then that is another issue. I know that TN addressed that a few years ago because they were giving out state ID cards to anyone and everyone.

There are also exceptions for the military who are temporarily stationed outside of their home state.

A drivers license is not the be-all-end-all. A few Americans do not drive, and befuddled legislators have stumbled over each other enough times to figure out a work-around for such improbable nonconformists, instead of just throwing them in jail for loitering. You can use a passport and another piece of evidence of residence, such as (but not limited to) a utility bill. If you and your sister in another state agree to have the phones in each other's houses installed in in each other's names, then you both have evidence of residence in the other state. That will get you a state-ID in the other state, even if the state is fussy, which some (like Texas) are not. Texas knows that every snowbird here needs a state ID in order to rent a video or get a library card. Florida snowbirds with another state DL get a state ID with the words "non resident" printed on it. Get around that by telling them you don't have a DL.

Having two DLs from different states is now harder to do, but once you have one from Florida, they will keep on renewing it forever as long as you pay the fee.

I see, so, in effect, "you guys" were merely inconvienced, but only a little bit.

Look, I could care less about the bans on the weapons you use in competition. The ban is over and unlikely to be reinstated, and other firearms were compeltely unaffected, as was the right to own firearms in general.

While fixating on such nonsence, Clinton and her cronies tried to pass legislation that would've required micro-stamping on all brass sold and made in the US, something that would've drove the cost up far past what "casual" shooters (ie non-professionals and non-military/police) would've been able to afford.

While concentrating on the BS that really doesn't affect most people or inconvinience others, or are mere necon snip-and-spin (Bamers want's to ban all guns, oh noes!!!), we MUST be dilligent and watch out for sneaky legislation that would, for all intents and purposes, ban gun ownership or put it out of range for average Joe Citizen.

Yes , the 'ban' was more of an inconvenience than anything.It did also serve to drive prices through the roof, cost we taxpayers a ton of dough, and accomplished nothing other than to make anti shooting types cheer wildy about their 'victory'. Now, with that in mind, that is bacically the aim of most of the new 'firearms laws' I have seen proposed recently. Drive up prices, install prohibitave taxes, make manufacturing costs shoot up like a rocket, make ammunition almost impossible to produce in a cost effective manner, let alone to shoot. This microstamping of ammmo is about the most rididculous thing I have ever seen. Also , bear in mind, that the 'assault weapons ban did effect law abiding shooters, but did not phase criminals in any way. The bad guys do not plunk down a grand at the local gunshop, fill out the required forms, submit to the Brady check, and go through any waiting periods to obtain a firearm, nor are the types of rifles we are talking about here a favored weapon of the criminal element. The point, then, is no matter what 'loopholes' are seemingly closed, or whatever other 'reasonable restrictions' are placed on the ownership and private sale of firearms, it won't do a bloody thing to slow down criminal misuse of firearms. The only ones who are effected are those who follow the law. Is this the intended target group of such measures, in reality? Seems so to me

I'm not up to date on all 50 states, but I can't drive 5 miles into Memphis and buy a handgun. I can't drive 20 miles into West Memphis, AR and buy a handgun. You have to be a resident of the state where you are purchasing the handgun. If I were going to order a gun over the internet, it would have to be shipped to my local dealer so they can run the background check before I take possession.

You rent an apartment in the other state for a month and generate a bill. You then get a non-driver's ID for that state. There are dozens of ways to get around the system. This bill also sought to close certain loopholes that have existed for many years at such venues as gun shows as well. This Bill has hit committee however, and looks likely to die there anyways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert_J

But they are still trying. They learned from the first one that it was more of an inconvenience so they are trying new things. The only thing stopping them is their own incompetence.

Still trying, and will continue to try, which is why a careful watch needs to be kept, not hysterical lemmings-bouncing-off-the-walls reactions to every lie and spin that comes down the pipe thrown by neocon media. The recent reactions to the neocon media lie that Bamers was "going to take away everyones guns" merely went to fuel anti-gun advocates and give them some "ammunition" in their agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert_J

Technically it wasn't Clinton. A guy thought up the laser serial numbering of individual bullets and had it patented. He then hired a company to lobby the different state legislatures to pass laws to make him money. The last time I looked bills had been introduced in 15 to 20 states but they have all failed. I thought California was the only one that had a chance to pass but thank goodness their budget woes took higher priority.

Yes, I am aware of that, one of my best points I used in debates against those "Ammunition Accountability" Bills, championed by Clinton and her cronies.

Yes , the 'ban' was more of an inconvenience than anything.It did also serve to drive prices through the roof, cost we taxpayers a ton of dough, and accomplished nothing other than to make anti shooting types cheer wildy about their 'victory'. Now, with that in mind, that is bacically the aim of most of the new 'firearms laws' I have seen proposed recently. Drive up prices, install prohibitave taxes, make manufacturing costs shoot up like a rocket, make ammunition almost impossible to produce in a cost effective manner, let alone to shoot. This microstamping of ammmo is about the most rididculous thing I have ever seen. Also , bear in mind, that the 'assault weapons ban did effect law abiding shooters, but did not phase criminals in any way. The bad guys do not plunk down a grand at the local gunshop, fill out the required forms, submit to the Brady check, and go through any waiting periods to obtain a firearm, nor are the types of rifles we are talking about here a favored weapon of the criminal element. The point, then, is no matter what 'loopholes' are seemingly closed, or whatever other 'reasonable restrictions' are placed on the ownership and private sale of firearms, it won't do a bloody thing to slow down criminal misuse of firearms. The only ones who are effected are those who follow the law. Is this the intended target group of such measures, in reality? Seems so to me

You've obviously missed my comments on this thread pointing out that gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens.

However...

Licensing is suppose to ensure that a firearm owner has recieved adequet safety and use training.

Registrations are suppose to ensure that certain criteria are met, such as waiting periods and eligibility.

Are you against, for example, hunting license regulations? If so, why? If not, why not?

You've obviously missed my comments on this thread pointing out that gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens.

However...

Licensing is suppose to ensure that a firearm owner has recieved adequet safety and use training.

Registrations are suppose to ensure that certain criteria are met, such as waiting periods and eligibility.

Are you against, for example, hunting license regulations? If so, why? If not, why not?

No, I havn't missed your positions, and I'm not ragging on you. Just stating my position. Hunting license regs? Lol, I totally support them. Funds collected from them go to our wildlife conservation programs, and directly benefit those who hunt. Hunter safety brings young shooters into hunting with proper guidance and the basics under their belt. That said, I have seen a few people who have CCW's that scare me. Not in that they are nuts or anything, they just don't handle their weapons well. I can say the same thing about a LOT of cops. If we are allowing LE to hit the streets to protect us, not properly trained and conditioned, how is it we can expect higher standard from the general citizenry? Per capita, IMHO, the general citizenry is better off than a disproportinate number of LE personell. I , personally, believe that there are enough laws and criteria already on the books, they just need to be properly enforced. With this in mind, and looking back at hunting regs, fees, and such, we KNOW where moneys collected from these programs goes. Where does the taxes and fees collected from the 'instant background check end up? It costs 25 bucks here for that. Do these type of fees go to further citizen training, to encourage responsible firearms use, to maybe help the victims of violent crime or some other use that benefits us directly? LMAO, I think not. The money disappears into the bereauocracy never to be heard from again. Personally, I say we look at our existing laws, and enforce them as they should be, and instead of monetarily punishing firearms, let us see our money going to something positive. I would have no heartburn with the Brady fees, and the plethora of others different places have, if the funds were used to help people be responsible gun owners, like hunting fees do.

No, I havn't missed your positions, and I'm not ragging on you. Just stating my position. Hunting license regs? Lol, I totally support them. Funds collected from them go to our wildlife conservation programs, and directly benefit those who hunt. Hunter safety brings young shooters into hunting with proper guidance and the basics under their belt. That said, I have seen a few people who have CCW's that scare me. Not in that they are nuts or anything, they just don't handle their weapons well. I can say the same thing about a LOT of cops. If we are allowing LE to hit the streets to protect us, not properly trained and conditioned, how is it we can expect higher standard from the general citizenry? Per capita, IMHO, the general citizenry is better off than a disproportinate number of LE personell. I , personally, believe that there are enough laws and criteria already on the books, they just need to be properly enforced. With this in mind, and looking back at hunting regs, fees, and such, we KNOW where moneys collected from these programs goes. Where does the taxes and fees collected from the 'instant background check end up? It costs 25 bucks here for that. Do these type of fees go to further citizen training, to encourage responsible firearms use, to maybe help the victims of violent crime or some other use that benefits us directly? LMAO, I think not. The money disappears into the bereauocracy never to be heard from again. Personally, I say we look at our existing laws, and enforce them as they should be, and instead of monetarily punishing firearms, let us see our money going to something positive. I would have no heartburn with the Brady fees, and the plethora of others different places have, if the funds were used to help people be responsible gun owners, like hunting fees do.

Where do the fees end up? Good question, and I agree they should be put right back into the system for related matters.

The current system is far from perfect, that I will readily admit.

Since firearms do go across state lines (the last firearm I purchased I bought a half hour away in PA) I believe they should be standardized at the federal level.

And not JUST because NYS is a royal pain in the ass, with radically different C&C laws across the state.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.